The Effects of UMA (Unified Model of Aesthetics) and CM (Categorical-motivation Model) in the Application of Aesthetic Preferences for Clothing Products
UMA（統一美學模型）和 CM（分類-動機模型）在服裝產品審美偏好應用中的影響

To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i4/21297
連結本文 ：http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i4/21297
DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i4/21297
Published Date: 13 April 2024
發佈日期：2024 年 4 月 13 日

Vol. 14, No. 4, 2024, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2024
第 14 卷，第 4 期，2024 年，E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2024
society. This study is the first to completely test the three-level relationship of the UMA model through clothing products and combines the product classification of the CM model to test people’s aesthetic preferences from the perceptual, cognitive and social levels.
社會。本研究首次透過服裝產品完整測試 UMA 模型的三層關係，並結合 CM 模型的產品分類，從感知、認知與社會層面測試人們的審美偏好。
Keywords: UMA(Unified Model of Aesthetics), CM (Categorical-motivation Model), Aesthetic Preferences, Clothing Products
關鍵字：UMA（統一美學模型）、CM（分類動機模型）、美學偏好、服裝產品

Aesthetics are expressed in the appearance of everyday objects(Whitfield & Allan, 2005). All fields of design explicitly involve aesthetics(Whitfield & Allan, 2005). Aesthetics is a very ancient concept, rooted in the Greek word “aesthesis”, which means “an understanding through sensory perception”(Hekkert, 2014). But until the 18th century, the concept was understood to mean sensory pleasure and delight. In line with the original Greek meaning, “aesthetic” or an aesthetic response is defined as pleasure or displeasure derived from the sensory-motor understanding(HEKKERT1, 2006; Hekkert, 2008). In the recent literature regarding aesthetic preference, a UMA model, aesthetic preference is studied from three levels (perceptual, cognitive, and social) and two simultaneously acting evolutionary pressures (i.e., the trade-off between safety needs and accomplishment needs)(HEKKERT1, 2006). These predictions, together with the main balance predictions for each processing level, are the subject of a major research project currently underway called “Project UMA”. This project aims to develop and test a unified model of aesthetics that explains our everyday aesthetic preferences for design artefacts. The categorical-motivation Model refers to the motivation model and the categorical model. The categorical-motivation model is based on Berlyne’s(1960, 1967, 1971, 1974) influential theory that has dominated experimental aesthetics for the past several decades. Although there are relevant experimental data to verify the collative-motivation model, there are also many inconsistent views. Complexity is but one determinant of aesthetic evaluation in terms of Berlyne’s work. However, the preference complexity function has received repeated attention because it represents an interesting and specific prediction derived from the collative-motivation model(WHITFIELD, 1983). The categorical model explains the influence of categories on people’s aesthetic response through cognition. Classification models assume that objects are not evaluated per se, but are judged in terms of the cognitive categories to which they are exposed. This means that the way people respond aesthetically to objects will be determined by their understanding of these objects. Determined by the formed category. The application of this model to design assumes that we should seek designed as expected. In fact, a handful of objects should correspond to our internal cognitive representation of that object. For example, a pair of pants should look like a pair of pants, and a dress should look like a skirt. Thus, the categorical model is the opposite of Berlyne’s novelty model. The categorical model assumes that We like what we know, pleasure is produced by confirmation of expectations, and familiarity produces pleasure - which is different from contempt. The motivational model predicts that a moderate discrepancy from expectations-novelty-will be favored, while the categorical model predicts that a confirmation of expectations-prototypicality-will be favored. The categorical-motivation model was conceived as a merger of these two conflicting theories (Whitfield & Allan, 2005).
美學表現在日常用品的外觀（Whitfield & Allan, 2005）。所有的設計領域都明確地涉及到美學（Whitfield & Allan, 2005）。美學是一個非常古老的概念，根源於希臘文的 "aesthesis「，意思是 」透過感官知覺的理解"(Hekkert, 2014)。但直到 18 世紀，這個概念一直被理解為感官上的快感和愉悅。根據希臘文的原意，「審美」或審美反應被定義為來自感官運動理解的快感或不快感（HEKKERT1，2006；Hekkert，2008）。在最近有關審美偏好的文獻中，一個 UMA 模型，從三個層次（感知、認知和社會）和兩種同時作用的進化壓力（即安全需求和成就需求之間的權衡）來研究審美偏好（HEKKERT1, 2006）。這些預測，連同每個處理層級的主要平衡預測，都是目前正在進行的一項名為「UMA 計畫」的主要研究計畫的主題。這個專案的目的是要開發和測試一個統一的美學模型，以解釋我們日常對設計藝術品的美學偏好。分類-動機模型指的是動機模型和分類模型。分類-動機模型是基於 Berlyne(1960,1967,1971,1974)有影響力的理論，該理論在過去的幾十年中一直主宰著實驗美學。儘管有相關的實驗資料可以驗證分類動機模型，但也有許多不一致的觀點。就 Berlyne 的工作而言，複雜性只是美學評價的一個決定因素。 然而，偏好複雜性函數之所以一再受到關注，是因為它代表了一個有趣且特殊的預測，而這個預測是來自於搭配動機模型（WHITFIELD, 1983）。分類模型解釋了分類通過認知對人們的審美反應的影響。分類模型假設對象本身不是被評價的，而是根據它們所接觸到的認知類別來判斷的。這表示人們對物件的美學反應方式會由他們對這些物件的理解所決定。形成的類別所決定。將這個模型應用在設計上，假設我們應該尋求設計的預期。事實上，一把物件應該對應我們對該物件的內部認知表象。例如，一條褲子應該看起來像一條褲子，一件裙子應該看起來像一件裙子。因此，分類模式與 Berlyne 的新奇模式正好相反。分類模式假設我們喜歡我們知道的東西，快樂是由期望的確認所產生的，而熟悉會產生快樂 - 這與輕蔑是不同的。動機模型預測，與期望的適度偏差--新奇--會受到青睞，而分類模型預測，期望的確認--原型--會受到青睞。分類動機模型被認為是這兩種相互衝突的理論的合體（Whitfield & Allan, 2005）。
Against this backdrop, aesthetic experience is intricate and multidimensional, although individual studies have identified certain mechanisms to explain observed aesthetic preferences (Berghman & Hekkert, 2017). Hekkert created the UMA model and empirically tested the framework through a series of studies to try to reconcile various aspects of product
在此背景下，儘管個別研究已找出某些機制來解釋觀察到的美學偏好，但美學經驗是錯綜複雜且多層面的 (Berghman & Hekkert, 2017)。Hekkert 創建了 UMA 模型，並通過一系列研究對該框架進行了實證測試，嘗試協調產品的各個方面。

design aesthetics. At the perceptual level, previous research provides strong support for the importance of unity-in-variety in aesthetic evaluation stimuli. In the field of product design, unity is negatively correlated with variety but has been found to increase aesthetic appreciation when statistically controlling for each other(Berghman & Hekkert, 2017). Therefore, this indicates that maximization of these two characteristics is best(R. A. G. Post et al., 2016). At the cognitive level, the literature finds a negative correlation between typicality and novelty, but both have a positive impact on aesthetic appreciation Carbon, 2010; Clementine Thurgood, Paul Hekkert, 2003). In the field of product design, the balance between these two is classified under the acronym MAYA - "most advanced, yet acceptable"Hekkert et al (2003) design where aesthetic appreciation will be highest. At the social level, research on the importance of the social dimension is not very extensive in the field of design aesthetics. Yet, existing research that have been conducted so far do lend support to a positive impact of both connectedness and autonomy (Blijlevens, 2015).
設計美學。在感知層面上，先前的研究提供了有力的支持，證明在美學評估刺激中，多樣性中的單一性的重要性。在產品設計領域中，統一性與多樣性呈負相關，但在統計控制彼此時，發現統一性會增加美學欣賞（Berghman & Hekkert, 2017）。因此，這表明最大化這兩個特性是最好的（R. A. G. Post et al.）在認知層面，文獻發現典型性和新穎性之間呈負相關，但兩者都對審美欣賞有正面影響 Carbon, 2010; Clementine Thurgood, Paul Hekkert, 2003)。在產品設計領域，這兩者之間的平衡被歸類為縮寫 MAYA -「最先進，但可接受」Hekkert 等人（2003 年）的設計，在這種設計中，美學欣賞將是最高的。在社會層面，設計美學領域對於社會層面重要性的研究並不是很廣泛。然而，迄今為止所進行的現有研究確實支持了連通性和自主性的正面影響（Blijlevens，2015）。
Nevertheless, the effects of aesthetic preference on clothing products have not been paid enough attention. At present, few studies on product aesthetic preference have been tested with clothing products. In China, there is still less research on the aesthetic preference of clothing, and the main research focuses on the aesthetic elements of clothing. As China’s consumption upgrade deepens and spreads, the aesthetic upgrade of clothing products is the next stage of consumption upgrade. According to Baidu’s life aesthetics change trend from 2012 to 2018, the life aesthetics index increased from 90 in 2012 to 209 in 2018. This shows that consumers’ aesthetic consciousness has begun to awaken. The “upgraded generation” women’s clothing consumption concept shows a trend of emphasizing cost-effectiveness, aesthetics and personalization. Therefore, it is the general trend to design clothing products that are more in line with consumers’ aesthetic tendencies and emotional resonance. Previous research has used clothing products to conduct research at the cognitive level (typicality and novelty) Ceballos et al (2019), but there is a gap in research at the perceptual and social levels. For other product designs, previous research has mainly focused on perceptual (unity-in-variety) and cognitive design principles (such as MAYA). Future research could assess how different modality levels (perceptual, cognitive, and social) interact in explaining aesthetic appreciation of product design Blijlevens (2015), especially as clothing products have not yet fully evaluated all three levels. Perhaps, for product categories for private consumption (e.g., vacuum cleaners), consumers place more weight on cognitive and perceptual design principles and less on social design principles in explaining their preferences, whereas for product categories for public consumption (e.g., clothing) this may be the other way around.
然而，審美偏好對服裝產品的影響尚未受到足夠的重視。目前，以服裝產品為試驗對象的產品審美偏好研究較少。在中國，針對服裝審美偏好的研究還較少，主要研究集中在服裝的審美要素上。隨著中國消費升級的深化和擴散，服裝產品的審美升級是消費升級的下一階段。根據百度 2012 年至 2018 年的生活美學變化趨勢，生活美學指數從 2012 年的 90 上升到 2018 年的 209。由此可見，消費者的審美意識已經開始覺醒。「升級世代 」女裝消費觀念呈現出重性价比、重美感、重個性化的趨勢。因此，設計更符合消費者審美傾向和情感共鳴的服裝產品是大勢所趨。以往的研究利用服裝產品在認知層面（典型性和新穎性）進行研究 Ceballos et al (2019)，但在感知層面和社會層面的研究尚屬空白。對於其他產品設計，之前的研究主要集中在感知（unity-in-variety）和認知設計原則（如 MAYA）。未來的研究可以評估不同的模態層次（感知、認知和社會）在解釋產品設計的美學欣賞時如何互動 Blijlevens (2015)，尤其是服裝產品尚未完全評估這三個層次。 也許，對於私人消費的產品類別（如吸塵器），消費者在解釋他們的偏好時，會更重視認知和感知設計原則，而較少重視社會設計原則，而對於公共消費的產品類別（如服裝），情況可能剛好相反。
This paper makes three key contributions. Firstly, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first research to completely test the relationship between the three UMA models for clothing products, while previous studies only focused on the cognitive or perceptual effects of the UMA model. Based on this new research gap, this study is expected to establish the first research literature on the relationship between the three levels of clothing product design in the UMA model that has not been explored in previous studies. This will provide theoretical reference value for subsequent research on aesthetic preferences. Secondly, this study focuses on how to define and measure the aesthetic pleasure of everyday objects. This research is different from the research on abstract art aesthetics, but uses scientific and empirical methods to measure the aesthetic pleasure of designed products with a proven, reliable, and generalizable scale. The study of clothing aesthetic preferences has important theoretical and practical significance. Thirdly, the research results can serve costume
本文有三大貢獻。首先，就筆者所知，這是第一個完整測試服裝產品 UMA 三種模型之間關係的研究，而之前的研究只集中在 UMA 模型的認知或感知效果。基於此一新的研究缺口，本研究可望建立第一個關於 UMA 模型中服裝產品設計三層次之間關係的研究文獻，而此一關係在以往的研究中尚未被探討。這將為後續的審美偏好研究提供理論參考價值。其次，本研究著重於如何定義與量度日常用品的美學愉悅感。本研究有別於抽象藝術美學的研究，而是運用科學化、實證化的方法，以行之有效、可靠且可推廣的量表來量度設計產品的美學愉悅度。研究服裝的審美偏好具有重要的理論和實踐意義。第三，研究成果可以服務於服裝